Safety Belt Use in Maine 2018 · Safety Belt Use in Maine 2018. Al Leighton, Margaret Gormley . ......

Safety Belt Use in Maine 2018

Al Leighton, Margaret Gormley Survey Research Center, Muskie School of Public Service

University of Southern Maine

2018

Submitted to:

Bureau of Highway Safety

State of Maine 164 State House Station

Augusta, Maine 04333-0164

Safety Belt Use in Maine, 2018

2 Prepared for the Bureau of Highway Safety, Department of Public Safety, State of Maine; by Survey Research Center, Muskie School of Public Service, University of Southern Maine, Portland, Maine September, 2018

Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................................. 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 5

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 10

METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................... 11

Road sections selected as observation sites .............................................................. 12

Sampling .......................................................................................................................... 12

Weighting ......................................................................................................................... 12

Observation times and days .......................................................................................... 12

Observer training ............................................................................................................ 13

OBSERVATION STUDY FINDINGS ............................................................................................. 14

Overview: Compliance with the law .............................................................................. 14

Gender differences ......................................................................................................... 14

Seating position .............................................................................................................. 14

Urban/rural differences................................................................................................... 14

Type of vehicle ................................................................................................................ 14

Passenger use related to use by driver ........................................................................ 14

Comparison with other states ....................................................................................... 15

Day of the week ............................................................................................................... 15

Time of day ...................................................................................................................... 15

Weather conditions ......................................................................................................... 15

Comparison of 2016 with 2015 and 2014 ...................................................................... 15

Summary .......................................................................................................................... 16



End Notes...................................................................................................................................... 17 List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ 18 Tables 1-11 .................................................................................................................................... 19

History of Occupant Protection Laws ........................................................................................ 28

2015 Observation Form ............................................................................................................... 29



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank several people who were helpful in conducting this study. Lauren Stewart,

Director, Bureau of Highway Safety worked with us on behalf of the Maine Bureau of Highway Safety. Ed

Beckwith at the Maine Department of Transportation provided all of the traffic data and location

information for each of the observation sites. We especially want to express our appreciation for all of the

efforts of Neil Chaudhary and Katie Raboin at the Preusser Research Group in Trumbull, Connecticut.

Their attention to detail regarding the data analysis and training of observers has been crucial to the

success of the project.

Finally, we thank the tremendous contributions of the Survey Research Center observers: Margaret

Gormley, Jon Dodds, Sharleen Garvey, and Tracie O’Keefe.

Al Leighton, Margaret Gormley

Survey Research Center

Muskie School of Public Service

University of Southern Maine



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Since 1986, the Maine Bureau of Highway Safety has periodically had an observation study of safety belt

use in Maine conducted to determine the level of compliance in the state. For the year 2018, the Survey

Research Center (SRC) at the Muskie School of Public Service, University of Southern Maine, with

assistance from the Preusser Research Group of Trumbull, Connecticut, conducted the study and

produced this report of the findings. Research results from this study provide the official measure of belt

use in Maine and provide valuable information regarding the success of the state’s efforts to educate the

public about the importance of safety belt use. Furthermore, increased seatbelt use can lead to additional

funding from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

In 2012, NHTSA implemented a new, standardized method for conducting seatbelt observations in each

state. For the first time, the number of traffic fatalities in each county was utilized in the site selection

process. Whereas in previous years, the counties in which observations took place were chosen to

represent at least 85% of the state’s population, the new guidelines are designed to choose the counties

that represent at least 85% of the vehicular fatalities in the state. In Maine, 12 of 16 counties were

included for observations, representing approximately 90% of all vehicular fatalities in the state. A

probability based sampling method was utilized to select the 127 segments to be observed. Among the

locations chosen were sites on I-95, I-295, and the Maine Turnpike. As a result, all types of roads and

traffic were observed. As in all prior studies, visual observations were made to determine the extent of

use.

For the past fourteen years, Maine’s seatbelt use observations were done immediately after a major

campaign to raise awareness of Maine’s seatbelt laws. Radio ads about seatbelt use received heavy air

play in many parts of the state. In addition, many police departments conducted a coordinated and highly

visible enforcement campaign. We have speculated in the past that these steps might temporarily lead to

an increased use rate, at least during the time of the campaign and shortly after. Several steps have been

taken to examine the extent of any possible “drop off” in use rates. In 2009 the full observation study was

conducted again during the month of September. In addition, several “mini” studies of a sub-sample of

sites have been conducted. In each case, the drop in use rates was found to be very modest (see “Safety

Belt Use in Maine, September 2009” for more details).

This study meets all of the applicable NHTSA criteria and was approved by NHTSA on February 14,

2017. See Table 11 for the list of counties and towns studied.



Road sections selected as observation sites. In 2017, Maine conducted a new site selection process,

as required by NHTSA. As in previous years, 127 sites were selected for observations. The same 12

counties were studied but all 127 sites are different from the ones where observations took place over the

previous 5 years. Sites were selected following a probability-based sampling procedure developed by the

Preusser Research Group and approved by NHTSA on February 14, 2017 (see Table 11 for a full list of

towns selected). Restraint use was recorded for 18,222 drivers and front seat passengers in 14,344

vehicles (in the 2017 study, 16,775 occupants and 13,590 vehicles were recorded).

Sampling and estimating protocols. In 2012, NHTSA began to institute new standardized sampling and

estimating protocols for all states to follow in their safety belt use studies. These procedures were

developed to ensure comparability among findings from state to state. The new estimation formulae are

intended to provide each state with very precise estimates of their statewide belt use rates. These

formulae provide a statistically sound method to calculate weights that will help adjust sample data to

better reflect the volume and types of traffic found in all roads in a state, not just those selected for

observation. Maine’s sampling procedures are now based primarily on the number of vehicular fatalities in

each county, and on traffic data known as the Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled (DVMT) for each county in the

State. DVMT data provide a measure of the volume of traffic at each road segment in Maine.

One of the results of adopting new estimation methods is that the findings from 2012 through 2018 are

not entirely comparable to those from previous years. Different methods can produce different results,

which is why NHTSA has adopted the new standardized methods. We support the use of the new

estimation approach and NHTSA’s efforts to bring consistency and uniformity to all of the states but

remind readers that, because of these changes, results from this year’s study are not quite equivalent to

those conducted prior to 2012.

Subgroup analyses. This report includes findings from several subgroups, such as for different seating

positions, type of vehicle, etc. We urge readers to keep in mind that some of these groups have lower

numbers and, therefore, the point estimates of their use rates are less precise than those for the entire

sample.



OBSERVATION STUDY FINDINGS

Overview: Compliance with the law. After several years of increasing use rates, Maine saw a very

minimal decline in 2018, to 88.5%. In 2002, the statewide use rate was only 59%. By 2007, that rate had

increased to 79.8%. This year, drivers had a lower use rate than passengers. Table A shows changes in

the rates for drivers and passengers for the three most recent years.

Table A Comparison of seat belt usage rates statewide:

Occupants Observed 2018 Study

2017 Study

2016 Study

All Vehicle Occupants 88.5% 88.9% 85.8%

All Drivers 87.9% 89.0% 85.8%

All Front Passenger Seat Occupants 91.0% 88.3% 86.1%

Gender differences. Women in particular show substantial compliance with seatbelt laws. Table B shows

gender differences for 2016, 2017, and 2018. Note that male drivers account for all of the decline in the

overall use rate.

Table B

Comparison of seat belt usage rates by gender:

Gender 2018 Study

2017 Study

2016 Study

Male Driver 85.0% 87.1% 83.5%

Female Driver 92.4% 91.4% 89.2%

Male Passenger 85.1% 77.7% 75.6%

Female Passenger 93.9% 92.5% 91.6%



Passengers’ use of safety belts related to use by driver. As with prior studies, belt use of passengers

is strongly correlated with the practices of the drivers. When drivers use their safety belts, other

occupants of the vehicle (who are most likely friends or family of the driver) are more than twice as likely

to use their belts as they are when the driver is not using a belt (96.0% vs. 42.3%).

Comparison with other states. While Maine’s safety belt use has improved considerably over the years,

other states have increased their use as well1. As a result, the state remained near the bottom nationally

until recent years. In 1995, Maine’s rate of 50% was the fifth from the bottom of a list of all 50 states, the

District of Colombia, and Puerto Rico. By 2011, there still were only 11 states reporting lower use rates

than Maine. Because NHTSA has not yet released the 2018 use rates for all states, it is not possible to

report where Maine now stands but in 2017, Maine moved up relative to other states, with 22 states

having lower rates and 26 states and DC having higher rates (two states had the same rate as Maine).

Nationally, the use rate was 89.7% in 2017, a decline of 0.4 percentage points from 2016.

Type of vehicle. As has been the case in every study conducted in Maine, people in pickup trucks have

the lowest use rates, at 79.8 percent. This is a substantial increase from the 39.7% reported in 2002, but

is a decrease from 2017’s rate of 80.7 percent. Belt use in pickup trucks continues to be an area where

considerable improvement is still possible, given that their use rate is 9 percentage points lower than the

next lowest vehicle rate. In 2018, cars, SUVs, and vans have use rates of 91.4%, 90.7%, and 88.8%,

respectively.



SUMMARY

Safety belt use in Maine has increased markedly since 1991, when only a third of people aged 16 and

over were belted. (Another change in study methods should be noted here: In all of the studies conducted

during the 1990s, information for all vehicle occupants, including children, was recorded, as well as the

estimated age of each individual. Since 2004, children are no longer included for observations, nor is age

estimated.)

The impact of safety belt use is significant. Research published by NHTSA in 2008 stated that, when

properly used, lap/shoulder safety belts reduce the risk of fatal injury to front-seat passenger car

occupants by 45%; they reduce the risk of moderate-to-critical injury by 50%. The safety effect is even

greater for light truck occupants, where safety belts reduce the risk of fatal injury by 60% and moderate-

to-critical injury by 65%. The same study estimates that over 15,000 lives were saved by using safety

belts in the year 2006.2 It is research findings such as these that provide much of the impetus for

continuing efforts to increase seatbelt use in Maine and the nation.

This year’s study was conducted immediately after a major enforcement and publicity campaign meant to

increase safety belt usage. The rest of this report describes how the 2018 study was implemented and

presents the key findings. It also shows comparisons between 2018 and the previous two studies. The

project was conducted thanks to a contract between the Bureau of Highway Safety, Department of Public

Safety, State of Maine, and the Survey Research Center at the Muskie School of Public Service,

University of Southern Maine (USM), along with a subcontract between USM and the Preusser Research

Group in Trumbull, Connecticut.

Portland, Maine

September 20, 2018



INTRODUCTION

The impact of seatbelt use is substantial. Research reported by NHTSA in 2008 found that lap/shoulder

belts reduce the risk of fatal injury to front-seat passenger car occupants by 45 percent and the risk of

moderate-to-critical injury by 50 percent. Seat belts are even more effective for light-truck occupants,

reducing the fatality risk by 60 percent and the moderate-to-critical injury risk by 65 percent. In 2006, seat

belts saved the lives of an estimated 15,383 vehicle occupants age 5 and older.3 Nationally, about 90% of

all motorists now use their safety belts.4

Prior to 1996, when mandatory seatbelt laws for adults went into effect, Maine motorists used their

seatbelts at a rate only about half of the national rate.5 In November 1995, Maine voters narrowly

approved a referendum establishing a secondary enforcement law requiring almost all people to wear

safety belts or use child restraint devices. In 2007, a primary enforcement law went into effect (although

ticketing didn’t begin until April 1, 2008, to allow time for the state to raise public awareness of the law).

The study here reports on results from an observation study conducted in 2018, ten years after Maine’s

primary enforcement law began to be implemented. The data contained in this report are used to provide

the Bureau of Highway Safety and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration the current use

rates and a measure of changing use patterns over time.

The research project was conducted by the Survey Research Center of the Muskie School of Public

Service at the University of Southern Maine, under a contract with the Maine Bureau of Highway Safety,

Department of Public Safety, State of Maine. The study was designed to determine the rate of safety

restraint use in Maine as part of the development of a statewide comprehensive highway safety plan as

required by NHTSA. It incorporates the standardized design requirements developed by NHTSA in an

effort to ensure reliability and comparability of findings between each of the states.



METHODOLOGY

In 2012, a number of methodological changes were introduced in the observation study. These include

selecting the counties for observations based on traffic fatalities rather than population; developing a

stratified sampling protocol in which each county had either 10 or 11 observation sites chosen; and the

inclusion of certain commercial and emergency vehicles in the study. While all of the Muskie School’s

previous studies have met NHTSA guidelines and represent the official state use rates, the effect of these

changes means that direct comparisons may not be entirely accurate between this year’s study and some

of the earlier ones. The following is a description of the changes that were implemented and their

potential impact.

The biggest methodological change in 2012 was the new protocol for selecting counties for observation.

In all previous years, this was based on the population of each county. NHTSA guidelines allowed

selecting the counties that had a combined population that covered 85% of the population of the entire

state. In 2012, the new guidelines called for choosing counties that represented 85% of all traffic fatalities

in the state, as measured by the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) over the previous 3 years.

The impact of this method was to increase the number of counties included, from 10 counties in previous

years to 12 counties, starting in 2012; the 12 counties represent 90% of all traffic fatalities in Maine. Nine

of the 10 counties chosen prior to this change were included in the new design (see Table 11 for a

complete list of all towns and counties chosen).

The next biggest change in methodology was that of using a stratified sample of road segments selected

for observation within each county. Prior to 2012, the number of segments chosen in each county ranged

from 18 in Cumberland to only 7 in Knox, an assignment based on the county’s population in relation to

the state population. Now, each county has either 10 or 11 road segments included for observations; data

were weighted to adjust for this selection method.

To accommodate the new guidelines, certain commercial and emergency vehicles are now included for

observation. In the past, taxi cabs, pizza delivery cars, police cars, etc., were not included; beginning with

2012, these vehicles are allowed. Large commercial vehicles (generally, those with more than 4 wheels)

are still excluded.

In addition to these methodological adjustments, another important factor is the highly advertised and

visible awareness and enforcement campaign that was conducted immediately before the current study

began. While this seems to have the effect of at least temporarily boosting people’s likelihood of using

safety belts, the September 2009 study that was conducted by the Muskie School and Preusser

Research Group 3 months after the campaign ended found the impact to be only a modest one.



Road sections selected as observation sites. Observation sites must allow the opportunity for a

reasonably representative flow of multi-purpose traffic, while allowing observers a safe viewing position

from which to observe and record belt use of occupants in each vehicle. Observers were given

descriptions of the road segment to observe (e.g., “in Auburn, on Minot Avenue, between Heath Lane and

Garfield Road”). They were also told which direction of traffic to observe. They then were able to find the

most advantageous spot on the road segment from which to observe. They were instructed to only

include vehicles that had actually passed through the first identifier of the description (in the example

above, the intersection of Minot Avenue and Heath Lane). Observations were conducted from a single

point on each segment. In all, observations of 14,344 passenger vehicles and the use or nonuse by

18,222 occupants was recorded. A list of the towns and cities selected appears as Table 11.

Sampling. The sites to be observed were selected by the Preusser Research Group of Trumbull, Conn.

The sampling design was developed to ensure compliance with NHTSA’s standardized guidelines. The

design of the sampling process provides a confidence level of 95% with a standard error of 0.781% and a

relative standard error of 0.882%, and a final sample size of 127 road segments. The probability of a road

segment being selected was proportional to the traffic volume measured in average daily vehicle-miles

traveled (DVMT) on each road segment, based on Maine Department of Transportation data.

Weighting. Consistent with NHTSA guidelines, the data were weighted to reflect the sampling design and

the average traffic volume at the selected road segments. The weighting simply adjusts the actual

number of vehicles observed to reflect the expected number of vehicles, based on the traffic volume

where the segment is located, and combines the site data in a way that represents statewide traffic

volumes.

Observation times and days. Observations were made at 127 locations throughout the state for 45

minutes each, on a structured schedule of observation times and days that would maximize the

opportunity to study variations in restraint use by time and by day of the week. Road segments were

randomly assigned to a day and time for observations, although consideration had to be given for trips to

locations that required lengthy travel times. Each day and time had an equal probability of selection. All

observations were done during daylight hours. All observations in each county were conducted over a two

day period. If any site had to be rescheduled (due to rain, road construction, etc), the observations were

done on the same day of the week and at the same time of day as the originally scheduled time.

Many roads have two or more lanes of traffic in each direction. In those cases, the observation period

was divided by the number of lanes, and each lane was observed for the proportional length of time. For

example, a road with three lanes would require that each lane be observed for 15 minutes (three lanes

times 15 minutes each equals 45 minutes, the full observation period).



Observation assignments were made across a schedule of time slots that began at 7:00 a.m. and ended

at 6:15 p.m. Observations were conducted from June 4 to June 19, 2018 (by design, the observations are

scheduled to be completed before the Fourth of July holiday, as traffic patterns may be significantly

different during that weekend).

Observer training. Observers were trained by Neil Chaudhary from the Preusser Research Group. They

were trained to observe proper shoulder belt use (vs. improper or no use) of the driver and, if present, a

right front seat passenger (infants were excluded). Observations were made for private passenger

vehicles and for certain commercial and emergency vehicles. The training involved written material, oral

presentation, and field practice. The field practice was conducted on Forest Avenue in Portland, near the

SRC office. The practice observations were crucial. Results were reviewed and analyzed for accuracy

and consistency; no observers were allowed to begin until their practice observations met training

standards.



OBSERVATION STUDY FINDINGS

Overview: Compliance with the law. The latest use figures show a minor decrease in the proportion of

Maine’s population buckling up, at 88.5% overall. While the use of safety belts has improved considerably

from earlier years, a number of states still have higher use rates.6 In order to further raise rates relative to

other states, it seems likely that Maine will continue to require an on-going effort of education and

enforcement.

Gender differences. The female use rate has been consistently higher than that of males; that pattern

continues in 2018. While 92.9% of all female occupants were restrained, only 85.0% of males were using

their seatbelts. Female drivers and passengers have been increasing every year for several years. Male

passengers have also increased their belt use, but male drivers declined more than 2 percentage points

from 2017 to 2018.

Seating position. In 2018, 87.9% of drivers were using seatbelts and 91.0% of passengers were using

theirs. There is no clear pattern in use rates by seating position as drivers and passengers have often

alternated with the highest use rates over the years.

Urban/rural differences. The belt use rate in rural locations was essentially the same as that of urban

locations, at 90.0% and 89.9% respectively. The gap between the two areas has been narrowing

considerably over the last few years, after a consistent pattern of higher use in urban areas for many

years. It is striking to note that in 3 of the past 4 years, rural use was slightly higher than urban use.

(Note: due to the statistical difficulties of weighting data by twelve different counties, various road types,

and traffic volume at all road segments, these data are not weighted).

Type of vehicle. There is one clear difference in driver safety belt use rates according to the type of

vehicle the driver is operating. At 79.4%, drivers of pickup trucks have a considerably lower use rate than

drivers of any of the other types of vehicles (see Table 7 for use rates of all drivers by vehicle type). It is

likely that the selection of a vehicle and the decision of whether to buckle up or not are both related to

gender, age, lifestyle and other factors, so this may not be a surprising finding; it certainly has been

consistent over the years. This marks the first decline in use rates for pickup truck drivers in several

years, after reaching a high of 81.4% last year.

Passenger use related to use by driver. As in all prior studies, buckling up is a friend and family affair.

When drivers use their safety belts, other occupants of the vehicle (who are most likely friends or family of

the driver) are more than twice as likely to use their belts as they are when the driver is not using a belt,

96.0% vs. 42.3%; see Table 8.



Comparison with other states. While Maine’s use rate has improved substantially since 2002, other

states have also improved.7 The net result is that Maine is now just about in the middle of the range in

national standings. In 2017, there were 22 states reporting lower use rates than Maine. 2018 figures have

not been released yet so we cannot state Maine’s position in this year’s national rankings.

Day of week. Observations were conducted on all days of the week, and while there are slight variations

in safety belt usage across the days (Table 7), there is no readily apparent pattern to the findings. The

assignment of days and times of observation to the sites was systematic and unbiased, but the number of

observations obtained on each day varied considerably because the traffic volume at the selected sites

varied. Use rates are highest on Tuesday and Friday (90.7% and 89.5%) and lowest on Wednesdays, at

(88.1%). (NOTE: these are based on unweighted data). Time of day. Safety belt use varies throughout the day (Table 7). The highest rates are from 9:00 am to

10:59 am (91.1%). The lowest rates occur between 1:30 p.m. and 3:29 p.m. (86.7%). Time of day rates

have also varied from year to year.

Weather and road conditions. Weather conditions varied more this year than in some other years. As a

result, 59.2% of the observations were conducted in sunny weather, 31.9% when it was cloudy, and 8.9%

were done in slight rain. There was some variation in use rates for these conditions; sunny weather had

90.1% use while cloudy weather had 89.3% and rainy weather was 92.4% (see Table 7).

Comparison of 2018 with 2017 and 2016 data. Numerous studies in Maine have been conducted for

the Bureau of Highway Safety of the Maine Department of Public Safety over the years. The first was

done by Northeast Research for the School of Public Health of the Boston University Medical School.8

The next four were conducted by the Muskie School’s Survey Research Center.9 The year 2002 study

was completed by CSI® Santa Rita Research Center.10

All studies since 2002 have been conducted by the Muskie School. As described in the Methodology

section, there were several major changes in the study design that were implemented in 2012. Other

changes have also been made over time, so comparisons between years may not be entirely appropriate.

In 2002, overall compliance stood at approximately 59%. At that time, the rate for people over 18 was

also 59%. Beginning in 2004, only adults were recorded (although it is likely that some mid- to older-teens

were inadvertently included). The rate for 2007 had increased to 80% and to 83% in 2008. Over the next

four years, Maine’s rate increased to 84.4%. After reaching a high of 88.9% in 2017, the use rate now

stands at 88.5 percent.



This year, passengers are more likely to use their seatbelts than drivers, 91.0% and 87.9%, respectively.

Over the years, drivers and passengers have alternated several times as to which group had the higher

use rates. Passenger use increased from last year, for the eighth consecutive year. Driver use, however,

declined in 2018.

A look at male drivers and female drivers over the last three studies shows steady increases among

women, but a decline among men. The current use rates for male drivers of 85.0% and for females of

92.4% demonstrate that the “gender gap” continues to exist. Indeed, the gap has widened from 4.3

percentage points in 2017 to 7.4 percentage points in 2018.

SUMMARY

During the early to mid-nineties, seatbelt use in Maine increased substantially. By 1997, however, that

trend had ended. From then through 2002, there was no overall increase and even some declines in

certain areas. The years of increase correspond to a time when a number of changes were made in

seatbelt laws in the state—in 1989, the law was expanded to require all occupants age 4 to 19 to use

restraints. In 1993, fines for violations were increased. And most importantly, in 1995, a statewide

referendum requiring all adults 19 and older to use safety belts was passed. From 1995 through 2006,

there were no major revisions to Maine’s belt laws. With the implementation of the new primary

enforcement law, Maine’s safety belt use rates showed increases in some but not all categories.

In 2018, Maine’s overall use rate declined slightly to 88.5 percent. For the year, most sub-groups

increased their rates of seat belt use, including female drivers, all occupants, and rural occupants, among

others. However, the fact that male drivers and pick up drivers decreased after several years of increases

suggests that efforts will need to continue in order to ensure that Maine’s level of safety in passenger

vehicles will be improved and consistently maintained.



ENDNOTES 1 U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety Facts June 2018, Research Note, DOT HS 812 546. 2 U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2006 Motor Vehicle Occupant Protection Facts, August 2008, DOT HS 810 654. 3 U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2006 Motor Vehicle Occupant Protection Facts, August 2008, DOT HS 810 654. 4 U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety Facts June 2018, Research Note, DOT HS 812 546. 5 U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety Facts 2011, Research Note, DOT HS 811 493. 6 U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety Facts June 2018, Research Note, DOT HS 812 546. 7 U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety Facts June 2018, Research Note, DOT HS 812 546. 8 Deidre Hungerford, David Kovenock, and James Sorg, Maine Seat Belt Use Observation Study, February, 1986: Preliminary Summary, Northeast Research, Orono, Maine, 1986. 9 Al Leighton, Erika Ziller and Suzanne K. Hart, Safety Belt Use in Maine 1991, 1995, 1997, 1998, Edmund S. Muskie Institute of Public Affairs, University of Southern Maine, prepared for the Bureau of Highway Safety, Department of Public Safety, State of Maine, 1992, 1995, 1997, 1999. 10 Ash Bose, Safety Belt Use in Maine 2002, CSI Santa Rita Research Center, Communication Software, Inc., Arizona, December, 2002.



List of Tables 2018 Maine Safety Belt Use Observation Study

Table 1: Restraint Use, All Persons Table 2: All Persons, by Seating Position Table 3: Restraint Use, Males Table 4: Males, by Seating Position Table 5: Restraint Use, Females Table 6: Females, by Seating Position Table 7: Percentage of Drivers Wearing Safety Belts Under Selected Conditions:

• Type of vehicle

• Day of the week

• Weather

• Time of observation Table 8: Passenger Belt Use/Nonuse Compared to Driver Belt Use/Nonuse Table 9: Restraint Use All Occupants, All Vehicles, by Urban and Rural Counties Table 10: Observed Safety Belt Use Rates Reported to NHTSA by States Table 11: Locations of Intersections at Which Observations Were Conducted



TABLE 1

Restraint Use in Passenger Vehicles

Statewide

Maine, 2018

All Persons

All Persons

Lap/Shoulder 88.5%

No Restraint 11.5%

No. Vehicles =14,344; No. Persons =18,222

TABLE 2

Restraint Use in Passenger Vehicles

Statewide By Seating Position

Maine, 2018

All Persons

Driver Passenger

Lap/Shoulder 87.9% Lap/Shoulder 91.0%

No Restraint 12.1% No Restraint 9.0%

N = 14,250 N = 3,843



TABLE 3

Restraint Use in Passenger Vehicles Statewide

Maine, 2018

Males

All Males

Lap/Shoulder 85.0%

No Restraint 15.0%

N = 9,783

TABLE 4


By seating position

Maine, 2018

Males

Driver Passenger



N = 8,642 N = 1,141



TABLE 5


Maine, 2018

Females

All Females

Lap/Shoulder 92.9%

No Restraint 7.1%

N = 8,213

TABLE 6


By seating position

Maine, 2018

Females

Driver Passenger



N = 5,608 N = 2,605



TABLE 7

Percentage of Drivers Wearing Safety Belts Under Selected Conditions

Statewide

Maine, 2018

Type of Vehicle Percent of Drivers Vehicle Type # of Drivers Wearing Safety Belts

Car (N = 5,476) 91.0%

SUV (N = 4,864) 90.2%

Van (N = 959) 87.5%

Truck (N = 2,951) 79.4%

Day of the Week (Note: data in the rest of this Percent of Drivers table are not weighted) # of Drivers Wearing Safety Belts Sunday (N = 1,573) 88.68% Monday (N = 3,036) 89.43%

Tuesday (N = 2,137) 90.73% Wednesday (N = 1,307) 88.14% Thursday (N = 1,835) 89.16% Friday (N = 2,416) 89.49% Saturday (N = 2,047) 89.06%



Table 7, cont’d Percent of Drivers Weather1 # of Drivers Wearing Safety Belts

Sunny/Clear (N = 8,439) 89.24%

Raining (N = 1,256) 92.44%

Cloudy (N = 4,551) 88.68%

Fog (N = 0) 0%

Wet/Not Raining (N = 0) 0% ____________________ 1 Observations of Sunny/Clear and Cloudy imply the roads are dry. Raining corresponds to light rain occurring during the observations (data are not collected in heavy rain) and thus the roads are wet.

Time of Observation # of Drivers Percent of Drivers Wearing Safety Belts

7am – 8:59am (N = 2,690) 90.48%

9am – 10:59am (N = 3,694) 91.12%

11am – 1:29pm (N = 3,130) 88.31%

1:30pm – 3:29pm (N = 2,594) 86.66%

3:30pm – 6pm (N = 2,243) 89.61%



TABLE 8

Passenger belt use/nonuse compared to Driver belt use/nonuse

NOTE: Data in this table are NOT weighted

Maine, 2018

When the driver IS wearing a belt Driver Passenger

NOT APPLICABLE Lap/Shoulder 96.0%

No Restraint 4.0%

N = Not Applicable N = 3,588

When the driver is NOT wearing a belt Driver Passenger

NOT APPLICABLE Lap/Shoulder 42.3%

No Restraint 57.7%

N = Not Applicable N = 248



TABLE 9

Restraint Use All Occupants, All Vehicles Grouped by Observation Sites in Rural and Urban Locations

NOTE: Data in this table are NOT weighted

Maine, 2018

RESTRAINT TYPE Rural N %

Urban N %

STATEWIDE N %

Lap/Shoulder Belt 10,761 90.01 5,159 89.94 15,920 89.99

No Lap/Shoulder Belt 1,194 9.99 577 10.06 1,771 10.01

Lap/Shoulder Belt TOTAL 11,955 100.0 5,736 100.0 17,691 100.0



TABLE 10

Observed Safety Belt Use Rates Reported by States to NHTSA 2016 and 2017

State 2016 2017

State 2016 2017 Alabama 92% 93% Montana 76% 78% Alaska 89% 90% Nebraska 83% 86% Arizona 88% 86% Nevada 89% 91% Arkansas 75% 81% New Hampshire 70% 68% California 97% 96% New Jersey 93% 94% Colorado 84% 84% New Mexico 92% 92% Connecticut 89% 89% New York 92% 93% Delaware 91% 91% North Carolina 92% 91% District of Columbia 94% 94% North Dakota 83% 79% Florida 90% 90% Ohio 84% 83% Georgia 97% 97% Oklahoma 87% 87% Hawaii 95% 97% Oregon 96% 97% Idaho 83% 81% Pennsylvania 85% 86% Illinois 93% 94% Rhode Island 88% 88% Indiana 92% 93% South Carolina 94% 92% Iowa 94% 91% South Dakota 74% 75% Kansas 87% 82% Tennessee 89% 89% Kentucky 87% 87% Texas 92% 92% Louisiana 88% 87% Utah 88% 89% Maine 86% 89% Vermont 80% 85% Maryland 91% 92% Virginia 79% 85% Massachusetts 78% 74% Washington 95% 95% Michigan 95% 94% West Virginia 87% 90% Minnesota 93% 92% Wisconsin 88% 89% Mississippi 78% 79% Wyoming 81% 85% Missouri 81% 84% NATIONWIDE 90% 90%

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety Facts, June 2018 Research Note DOT HS 812 546. 1 Rates in states with primary belt enforcement laws appear in boldface. Primary Enforcement: Allows police to stop and cite motorists simply for not wearing seat belts. Secondary Enforcement: Motorists must be stopped for another reason in order to receive a seat belt citation.



TABLE 11 Maine 2018 Observation Sites List

8. Medway (1) 9. Old Town (1)

1. Androscoggin (11) 1. Auburn (6) 2. Lewiston (3) 3. Mechanic Falls (1) 4. Poland (1) 2. Aroostook (11) 1. Dyer Brook (1) 2. Fort Kent (1) 3. Madawaska (3) 4. Masardis (1) 5. New Sweden (1) 6. Presque Isle (3) 7. Sherman (1) 3. Cumberland (11) 1. Brunswick (4) 2. Freeport (1) 3. Harpswell (1) 4. Naples (1) 5. Portland (1) 6. South Portland (1) 7. Windham (1) 8. Yarmouth (1) 4. Hancock (10)

1. Deer Isle (1) 2. Ellsworth (5) 3. Gouldsboro (1) 4. Sullivan (1) 5. Surry (1) 6. Trenton (1)

5. Kennebec (11) 1. Albion (1) 2. Augusta (2) 3. China (1) 4. Gardiner (2) 5. Monmouth (1) 6. Oakland (1) 7. Waterville (1) 8. W Gardiner (1) 9. Winthrop (1) 6. Lincoln (10) 1. Boothbay (2) 2. Bristol (1) 3. Damariscotta (1) 4. Dresden (1) 5. Edgecomb (1) 6. Jefferson (1) 7. So Bristol (1) 8. Waldoboro (1) 9. Wiscasset (1) 7. Oxford (10) 1. Bethel (1) 2. Buckfield (1) 3. Fryeburg (1) 4. Hebron (1) 5. Norway (2) 6. Paris (1) 7. Peru (1) 8. Rumford (1) 9. Waterford (1) 8. Penobscot (11) 1. Bangor (3) 2. Brewer (1) 3. Dexter (1) 4. Glenburn (1) 5. Hermon (1) 6. Holden (1) 7. Lee (1)

9. Somerset (11) 1. Anson (1) 2. Cornville (1) 3. Fairfield (3) 4. Norridgewock (1) 5. Palmyra (1) 6. Pittsfield (2) 7. St Albans (1) 8. Tomhegan (1) 10. Waldo (10)

1. Belfast (5) 2. Unity (1) 3. Searsmont (1) 4. Winterport (3) 11. Washington (10) 1. Baileyville (2) 2. Columbia (1) 3. Crawford (1) 4. Cutler (1) 5. E Machias (1) 6. Harrington (1) 7. Perry (1) 8. Robbinston (1) 9. Topsfield (1) 12. York (11) 1. Alfred (1) 2. Arundel (1) 3. Hollis (1) 4. Kennebunk (1) 5. Kennebunkport (1) 6. Kittery (1) 7. Saco (1) 8. Waterboro (1) 9. Wells (2) 10. York (1)



History of Occupant Protection Laws

EFFECTIVE DATES LAWS 09-20-07 Primary enforcement law takes effect; ticketing began on April 1, 2008. 01-01-03 The operator is responsible for ensuring that a child (from 40 pounds but less than 80

pounds and less than 8 years of age) is properly secured in a federally approved child restraint system.

09-19-97 The operator is responsible for securing persons under age 18 in a safety belt/seat.

Persons 18 years and older are responsible for securing themselves. 09-19-97 A law enforcement officer may take enforcement action against an operator or passenger

18 years or age or older who fails to wear a seat belt only if the officer detains the operator for a suspected violation of another law. The requirement that the operator must receive a fine for the other violation in order to be subject to a penalty for the seat belt violation has been deleted.

01-01-95 With the implementation of Title 29A, the child safety seat law and seat belt law were

combined into one law. 12-27-95 A statewide referendum requiring adults 19 and older to use safety belts passed on

11-07-95. The law could be enforced only if the police officer had detained the operator of a motor vehicle for a suspected violation of another law.

07-94 Driver made responsible for securing children under 4 years in a child safety seat. 10-13-93 Penalty changed from fine of $25 for first violation and $50 for each subsequent violation

for those aged 0 to 4 to traffic infraction (up to $500 fine). 10-13-93 Penalty changed from fine of $25 for first violation and $200 for each subsequent violation

for those 4 to 19 to traffic infraction (up to $500 fine). 09-29-87 Children aged 4 to 13 years must be secured in a child safety seat or safety belt. 09-30-89 Law expanded to include children 4 to 16 years. 10-09-91 Law expanded to include persons 4 to 19 years. 09-23-83 Children aged 0 to 4 years must be secured in a child safety seat.

Maine Seat Belt Observation Form SITE NUMBER:__________ SITE:______________________________________________________ NOTES:________________________________________________________________________________ WEATHER CONDITIONS DATE: _______ - _______ - _______ DAY OF WEEK: _________________ 1 Clear / Sunny 4 Fog 2 Light Rain 5 Clear but Wet 3 Cloudy DIRECTION OF TRAFFIC FLOW (Circle one): N S E W START TIME:_____________ (Observation period will last exactly 45 minutes) DRIVER PASSENGER DRIVER PASSENGER

Veh. #

Vehicle C = car T = truck S = suv V = van

Sex M = male F = female U = unsure

Use + = yes - = no U = unsure



Veh. #

Vehicle C = car T = truck S = suv V = van





1 36

2 37

3 38

4 39

5 40

6 41

7 42

8 43

9 44

10 45

11 46

12 47

13 48

14 49

15 50

16 51

17 52

18 53

19 54

20 55

21 56

22 57

23 58

24 59

25 60

26 61

27 62

28 63

29 64

30 65

31 66

32 67

33 68

34 69

35 70 MAINE SEAT BELT SURVEY

FORM 2004 Page: ______of________

Safety Belt Use in Maine 2018 · Safety Belt Use in Maine 2018. Al Leighton, Margaret Gormley . ......

Documents

Transcript of Safety Belt Use in Maine 2018 · Safety Belt Use in Maine 2018. Al Leighton, Margaret Gormley . ......